Should the half-bet rule apply for big-bet poker?

[Lottery Larry]

I know Robert's Rules (and casino rules as well?) say that a full raise must be made by an all-in to reopen the betting.

I was wondering if it is fairer to apply the limit rule, of a half-bet or more to reopen the betting, to no-limit.

Arguments for/against? If you would apply the half-bet rule, what would be the disadvantage?

[Spooky]

The reason for the rule in the first place is to keep people from a scenerio like this:
10/20
UTG raises to 40
folds to button.
Button calls
SB folds
BB raises to 41
UTG raises to 50
Button calls
BB raises to 52
etc..

annoying as hell

The idea or spirit of the rule is "if you can't make a real raise, you can't raise"

[AngusThermopyle]

Pot Limit:
Pot $100
Albert bets $100
Barry makes it $150, all in
If Charles calls the $150, Albert can make it $700 ( call to $150, then $550 more) using the 1/2 bet rule.
That $50 gives Albert a pretty big hammer.

In Limit, the damage is much less, and the idea of a "bet" is much more defined ( ie is a certain amount ) whereas NL & PL the size of bets are variable.

Imagine the above chip figures, but for No Limit. Albert might figure Barry is going all-in and bets only $100 to set up the scenario where the $50 re-opens the betting.

I would prefer the full bet rule.

[Lottery Larry]

bad example- you didn't meet the half-bet criteria

[Lottery Larry]

"Pot Limit:
Pot $100
Albert bets $100
Barry makes it $150, all in
If Charles calls the $150, Albert can make it $700 ( call to $150, then $550 more) using the 1/2 bet rule.
That $50 gives Albert a pretty big hammer."

I know, but shouldn't that be part of the skill of the game, similar to a check-raise but bigger? Charlie has to think about what calling here means.

Shouldn't Albert be given the ability to make up for bad position by manipulating the bet to accomplish what he needs to? If he wants to bet more than $100, he can do so. But reading Barry and using that against Charlie, in a way that he couldn't do by simply betting, seems to me an important big-bet skill that should be allowed.
Why should Charlie benefit from a "free" half-raise?

If Albert opened for $80, should $10 be allowed to be a non-raise when Barry moves all-in for $150? Does Albert have to make an unusual bet of $75 in order to open the reraise opportunity, but $100 is too much because of the full-bet rule? Does that seem to make "sense"?


"Imagine the above chip figures, but for No Limit. Albert might figure Barry is going all-in and bets only $100 to set up the scenario where the $50 re-opens the betting. "

I think that is good poker, myself- manipulating the pot and the opponents to accomplish what you need to.

Any more disadvantages?

[RogerZBT]

Player A bets $100
Player B raises $1 all-in to $101

Now look at it from Player C's POV. That extra dollar is meaningless (in terms of the size of the pot), but potentially costs him $100's if A could re-raise. Pot manipulation is one thing... that's ridiculous.

As for Player A, he had the option to bet whatever he want and chose $100. To argue that he loses the ability to "protect his hand" after choosing how to protect it, IMO doesn't really hold water.

[Lottery Larry]

"Player A bets $100
Player B raises $1 all-in to $101

Now look at it from Player C's POV. That extra dollar is meaningless (in terms of the size of the pot), but potentially costs him $100's if A could re-raise. "

Again with the dollar reraise! How is that HALF of a bet?

As far as protecting his hand- it's tough to protect a hand when you're leading out into a small pot- you need to manipulate the betting so you have the ability to make a big reraise, if protection (or trapping) is your goal.

Why should a decent reraise by an all-in cut off the raising? To use your dollar example, Player A opens for the pot of $100 (a typical bet by a strong hand, correct?), player B is all-in for $199. That single dollar should prevent a reraise opportunity?

To require Player A to open for $99 or less, doesn't that give away the player's hand strength, potentially, to an experience PL player?

I'm specifically asking here about half-bet or more reopening the betting, with the $99 raise being the extreme amount in this example. Do you still think that this is a reasonable or unreasonable limitation?

[Lottery Larry]

IIRC, Robert's Rules has a rule stating that, after 3 small raises in big-bet poker, each subsequent raise has to be at least half? or more of the pot size.

That way you don't have the nibbling to death raises.

However, I specifically want to debate the all-in half-size or greater raise. This is a special case that I'm asking about.

Does it make sense to allow an all-in raise reopen the betting if it's at least half the size of the required raise for a situation? Or does it screw things up too much?

I'd appreciate any further thoughts

[Ghazban]

I don't like the half-bet rule, I prefer the full bet one. If nobody else can reopen the betting by raising less than a full raise, why should an all-in? There is no strategic advantage to one or the other (that I can think of). I believe scenarios can be constructed using either rule that give one player an advantage over another by allowing/disallowing a reopening of the betting.

Anyway, the short answer is that my personal preference is that an allin raise should be a legal sized raise in order to reopen the betting for players who have already called the original bet/raise.